Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Justin Abraham on 19 November, 2021
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
OP(KAT) NO. 310 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA(EKM).NO.1480/2017 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE CONVENER, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE
FOR PREPARING THE SELECT LIST FOR PROMOTION TO
THE POST OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695 001.
4 THE INSPECTOR GEENRAL OF POLICE,
NORTHERN RANGE, KANNUR-670 001.
BY SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..2..
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
JUSTIN ABRAHAM, AGED 44, S/O.ABRAHAM MATHEW,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI
CORRUPTION BUREAU, MEENANGADY, WAYANAD-673 591,
RESIDING AT KADUKKAMCHAL HOUSE, KALLANODE POST,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 615.
BY ADV SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
THIS OP(KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME
UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..3..
(C.R.)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, J.J.
============================================
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned order dated 17.1.2020 in
O.A.(Ekm) No. 1480/2017 on the file of the KAT,
Thiruvananthapuram Bench]
=============================================
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The sole respondent herein has filed the instant
Ext.P-1 original application O.A. (Ekm) No.1480/2017 before the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the
following prayers [See page 22 of the paper book of this O.P.]:
"
a) To call for the records leading to Annexure A-9 and A-10 and
set aside the same;
b) To issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the
applicant for inclusion in the select list of Sub Inspector for
promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors for the year 2006;
c) To declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for
inclusion in the select list of Sub Inspectors for promotion to
the post of Circle Inspectors for the year 2006notwithstanding
the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.25/2009 in C.C.No.328/2006;
And
d) To issue such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and
circumstances of the case."
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..4..
2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the
impugned Ext.P-3 final order dated 17.1.2020 thereby finally
disposing of instant O.A. (Ekm) No.1480/2017 with the specific
finding that in view of the subsequent events in relation to the
disciplinary proceedings, which has culminated only in the
imposition of censure, and other aspects, the denial of
regular promotion of the applicant at the behest of the
Departmental Promotion Committee ["DPC" for short] decision
making process for the select year 2006, in relation to his claims
for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police is illegal and ultra
vires, and that the competent authority of the DPC will conduct a
review and pass appropriate orders including the original applicant
in the select list for promotion as Inspector of Police for the select
list year 2006, and grant all consequential monetary benefits
therefrom within 3 months. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at
Ext.P-3 rendered on 17.1.2020 that is under challenge before us at
the instance of the State of Kerala, the Police Department and the
DPC authorities concerned. The present petition has been
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..5..
instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
with the following prayers [See page 9 of the paper book of this O.P.]:
"...........set aside the order dated 17.01.2020 in O.A.(EKM)
No.1480/2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional
Bench: Ernakulam), pending disposal of the above Original Petition
(KAT)."
3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners
herein/respondents in the O.A. and Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned
counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein/sole applicant
in the O.A. before the Tribunal.
4. The original applicant, who was earlier substantively
holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police, was essentially
aggrieved by non consideration of his promotion claims to the next
higher category post of Inspector of Police, through the regular
promotion process at the behest of the DPC. When he was
excluded from the select list 2006 as well as select list 2007, he had
submitted statutory representation in terms of Rule 28(b)
contained in Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services
Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as "The KS & SSR Part II"] , which
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..6..
was rejected later consequent to the alleged pendency of
5 disciplinary proceedings against him, and also citing the
ground that he was by then already convicted by the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady, in Calender Case
C.C.No.328/2006. The Tribunal has found that subsequently, all
the 5 specific cases of disciplinary proceedings have ended up only
in imposition of censure, and going by the statutory provision
contained in Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II,
censure shall not be taken into account for denial of regular
promotion through the DPC process, even in a selection post like
the Inspector of Police.
5. Further, it appears that all the 5 cases of disciplinary
action, though pending at the initial point of time, have now
culminated in imposition of only censure and not any other
penalty, be it minor or major as per the provisions of the
Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries Punishment & Appeal
Rules, 1958. These are all admitted facts. However, for sake of
clarity, it may be pertinent to refer to the details of 5 cases of
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..7..
disciplinary action, which are given in para 5 on pages 3 & 4 of
Anx.A-6, which is the reply statement dated 26.9.2013 filed by the
2nd respondent in the previous round of litigation in Transferred
Application proceedings T.A.No.6313/2012 on the file of the
Tribunal, and the same reads as follows [See pages 39 & 40 of the paper
book of this O.P.]:
"5. It is submitted that as stated by the petitioner, five disciplinary
proceedings were pending against him.
(i) He was placed under suspension and Oral Enquiry was pending
against him vide order No.A2/PR/19/07/KR dated 25.8.07 of IGP,
Kannur Range (IG029/07 KR). Memo of Charge was served on
9.12.07. The OE was disposed of by exonerating him from the charges
vide Order No.A2/PR/19/07KR dated 10.12.08 with a warning, "to be
more careful in future".
(ii) The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H2/5251/07/W dated
20.3.07 (H1-PR/6/07) was disposed of by awarding him with a
punishment of, "Increment Bar for one year without cumulative
effect" vide D.O.No.308/08 dated 19.6.2008 of Superintendent of
Police, Wayanad. On review petition, this punishment was modified
as "Censure" by Government vide G.O.(Rt.) No.2018/09/Home dated
13.07.2009.
(iii)The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H1/PR/64/07/W
dated 30.09.2007 was disposed of by awarding him a "Censure" vide
D.O.No.269/08 dated 12.7.2008 of SP, Wayanad.
(iv) The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H1/PR/57/07 dated
04.09.2007 was disposed of by awarding him with a punishment of
"Increment Bar for one year without cumulative effect" vide
D.O.No.261/08 dated 07.07.08 of SP, Wayanad. This punishment
was modified as "Censure" by Government vide G.O.(Rt.)
No.2019/09/Home dated 13.07.2009.
(v) Another Non OE pending against him vide Order No.H1/PR/49/08
W dtd. 2.6.08 was disposed of by awarding a 'Reprimand' vide
D.O.No.558/08W dated 19.12.08 of Superintendent of Police,
Wayanad."
6. In that regard, it is also relevant to note that in the said
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..8..
previous round of litigation in T.A.No.6313/2012, the Tribunal has
rendered Anx.A-8 verdict on 13.7.2016, whereby the impugned
rejection decision of the DPC was quashed and the matter was
remitted to the DPC for taking decision afresh, taking note of the
fact that all the 5 cases of disciplinary proceedings have ended up
in censure, which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of
denial of promotion, even to a selection post. However, the DPC
has passed the instant impugned Anx.A-9 proceedings dated
20.3.2017 again denying the request of the applicant for regular
promotion for the select list year 2006 on the ground that the
applicant was convicted in the aforementioned criminal
proceedings by the learned Magistrate, which ended in acquittal
only on the basis of compromise and therefore, it cannot be treated
as a clean acquittal, etc. It is this abovesaid rejection decision of
the DPC at Anx.A-9 that is challenge in the instant O.A., which has
culminated in the present verdict at Ext.P-3 dated 17.1.2020.
7. It is common ground that there is no dispute for the
petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. that all the abovesaid
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..9..
5 cases of disciplinary action have ended only in the imposition of
censure which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of
denial of promotion in view of the aforesaid statutory provision
mentioned hereinabove. The only ground of rejection that was
urged before the Tribunal was that though the applicant was
acquitted by the criminal appellate court as per Anx.A-4, the same
was only on the basis of compromise as is recorded therein and
therefore, it cannot be said to an honourable acquittal or clean
acquittal and hence, the factual aspects discernible from the said
impugned criminal proceedings would certainly indicate about the
conduct of the applicant as a police officer,and that the said
conduct is an undesirable conduct, and that the same has to be taken
into account as a relevant ground for denial of promotion claims, etc.
8. During the course of hearing in the previous occasion,
the counsel for the respondent herein/original applicant has made
a contention that the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) penalty
proceedings dated 2.11.2012 which culminated in censure is the
same as the one covered by the criminal proceedings as per
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..10..
Anx.A-4 criminal appellate judgment of the Sessions Court, which
ended in acquittal due to compromise. Taking of said submission,
we passed an order on 16.11.2021 directing the competent
authority among the petitioners herein, more particularly, the 4 th
petitioner Inspector General of Police, to give specific factual
instructions to the learned Senior Government Pleader as to
whether the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings
dated 2.11.2012 which culminated in censure are the same as the
one covered by the criminal proceedings as per Anx.A-4 criminal
appellate judgment of the Sessions Court, which ended in acquittal
due to compromise. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that
Anx.A-7(a) is the final proceedings dated 2.11.2012 in penalty
proceedings, which has ultimately culminated only in the penalty
of censure, as in the other cases mentioned hereinabove.
9. Today when the matter has been taken up for
consideration, Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior
Government Pleader would submit that he has been furnished
written instructions by the State Police Chief as per letter dated
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..11..
18.11.2021 stating that the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) order
dated 2.11.2012 are one and the same as covered by Anx.A-4
criminal appellate judgment dated 18.5.2010 in Criminal Appeal
No.25/2009 on the file of the Sessions Court, Wayanad, at
Kalpetta. However, it is stated therein that as the criminal appeal
has ended in acquittal only on account of compromise as is clearly
recorded in Anx.A-4, it cannot be treated as clean acquittal, etc.
Further that, though the abovesaid penalty proceedings referred to
in Anx.A-7(a) initially proposed provisional decision to award the
applicant with punishment of increment bar for one year with
cumulative effect, the disciplinary authority has finally disposed of
disciplinary case by awarding him censure by taking lenient view
as per Anx.A-7(a), etc.
10. So, it is indeed admitted by the petitioners herein that
Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings has now culminated in censure.
Further, it is also admitted that the allegations covered by Anx.A-4
criminal appeal judgment, and the allegations in Anx.A-7(a)
censure order are one and the same. It is true that the criminal
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..12..
appellate judgment has been rendered only on account of
compromise and resultant acquittal. That is an aspect which is
clearly recorded in Anx.A-4 judgment. However, the heart of the
matter is that though the factual aspects borne out from the above
criminal proceedings, even if it has ended in acquittal as in the
instant case, still it could be taken into account to assess on the
basis of norms of overall broad probabilities of the situation, and to
decide as to whether it is a relevant ground for consideration in the
assessment of claims of promotion. If so, appropriate decision
could have also been independently taken thereon. However, in the
instant case, the self-same allegations has also resulted in disciplinary
proceedings, and the disciplinary authority, on their own volition,
have now imposed only a punishment of censure, as can be seen from
Anx.A-7(a).
11. Going by the statutory norms in the KS & SSR Part II as
stated hereinabove, such an order of censure cannot be taken into
account for denial of promotion even for a selection post.
Therefore, when the overall factual probabilities emerging from
the criminal proceedings at Anx.A-4 is taken into account,
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..13..
ultimately, it is for the competent authority concerned to take a fair
and reasonable decision in the matter. In the instant case, the
competent authority themselves have taken a decision that after
assessing the overall broad probabilities on the self-same allegations
in the disciplinary proceedings that only an order of censure would
suffice, which cannot be used to deny promotion. When that is the
position, it cannot be said to be fair or reasonable to again say that
regular promotion should be denied on the ground of acquittal as
per Anx.A-4, merely because it is on the basis of compromise,
especially in view of the censure imposed in the disciplinary
enquiry and in view of the provision of KS & SSR Part II as
discussed below.
12. Faced in this situation, Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal,
learned Senior Government Pleader would urge that the Tribunal
has lost sight of the statutory provision contained in Note 'ii' to
Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II, which reads as follows:
"(ii) The vacancy that would have gone to the Officer but for his
suspension for the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings
against him for the imposition of a major penalty should be filled only
on a temporary basis by the next person in the approved list. If the
Officer concerned is completely exonerated, he will be promoted
thereafter to the post filled on a temporary basis, the arrangements
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..14..
made previously being reversed. If the exoneration is not complete, the
Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its
merits. Where, however, the post which would have gone to the Officer
but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental
proceedings against him, ceases to exist before the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, he will be promoted to the first vacancy that
may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time.
If the officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for
imposition of a minor penalty and who have been provisionally
included in the select list are fully exonerated of the charges, their
cases for promotion on the basis of such inclusion in the select list shall
be considered. If the Officers are not fully exonerated of the charges,
the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its
own merit."
13. It is true that going by the abovesaid statutory provision,
if the officers are not fully exonerated of the charges, the DPC may
decide each case on its own merits. However, the abovesaid provision
contained in Note 'ii' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II,
should be read harmoniously with the provisions contained in Rule
28(b)(i)(7) Note 'v' thereof, which reads as follows:
"A censure under rule 11(1)(i) of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 or a warning
awarded to proposed to be awarded to an Officer need not be taken
into account while considering his case for promotion under Notes
(ii), (iii) and (iii a) above."
So, the penalty of censure cannot be invoked even in the case of
Note 'ii' supra of Rule 28(b)(i)(7).
14. Indisputably, not only for the 5 disciplinary action
mentioned hereinabove, but also in relation to the allegations
covered by Anxs.A-4 & A-7(a), the disciplinary authority
themselves have consciously and on their own volition have ordered
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..15..
only for censure. Since, censure cannot be taken into account for
denial of promotion in view of the abovesaid provision contained in
Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7), the abovesaid argument of the petitioners
cannot be countenanced, as Note 'v' will cover even cases of Note 'ii'
supra. If the abovesaid contention is to be accepted by this Court,
then it would amount to nullification the abovesaid provision
contained in Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7). A mere reading of Note 'v' to
abovesaid Rule would make it clear that the said mandate contained
therein not to take into account censure while considering the case of
incumbent for promotion, would cover even cases under Notes 'ii', 'iii'
and 'iii a' above, and therefore it also includes Note 'ii' of abovesaid
rule. Hence, if the abovesaid argument is accepted, it is as good as
making the abovesaid provision contained in Note 'v' to the Rule
above, as almost nugatory. In the light of these aspects, we are of the
firm view that the Tribunal cannot be seriously faulted with for
arriving at the impugned conclusion as per the verdict at Ext.P-3.
15. Certain other grounds have been urged by the learned
Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners. The first
of said ground is on the basis of Ground 'F', given on page 9 of the
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..16..
present O.P., which reads as follows:
"F. The Hon'ble Tribunal now ordered, to place the case of the
applicant before the review Departmental Promotion Committee and
pass appropriate orders to include him in the select list of promotion
as Circle Inspector, for the year 2006. There is no relevance to the
select list issued vide No.T4/19440/2017 dated 30.03.2017 since the
same was revised vide Notification No. T4/137066/2018 PHQ dated
24.11.2018 based on the revised seniority list issued vide PHQ order
No. E2/18119/2016 dated 11.07.2018. As per the latest revised
seniority list, the petitioner is eligible to be considered to the
vacancies from 2008 onwards, since the petitioners seniority position
does not enable him to be considered for the year 2006-2007. He has
been time and again considered by various DPC's but ultimately
assigned in the select list of 2010 and was promoted vide DGO
314/2011 dated 05.03.2011. This was the earliest possible seniority he
could be assigned in the select lists given in his service record and
stipulations in Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958."
16. It is pointed out to us that the matter in Ground 'F' was
already dealt with in para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement dated
11.2.2019 filed by the respondents in the present O.A. before the
Tribunal. The said para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement reads as
follows:
"17. It is to be noted that the seniority list of the Sun Inspectors
of the Police was revised vide PHQ order No.E2-24772/2014 dated
04.11.2016. In the revised seniority list, the ranking of many SIs had
been interchanged. Due to revision of seniority list it becomes
necessary to revise the select list of SIs fit for promotion as Inspector
of Police for the vacancies in the years w.e.f., 2006 to 2011. Since the
position of the applicant had been lowered in the seniority list of SI,
he became eligible for consideration in the select at of SIs fit for
Inspector of Police for the vacancies in the year 2008 only. Due to
pending disciplinary proceedings, he was superseded from the above
select list. The DPC(Lower) held on 06.02.2017 had decided to include
him the select list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..17..
Inspector of Police for the vacancies in the year 2010. Since the
seniority list of SIs has been revised, applicant cannot be considered
for inclusion in the zone for preparation of Select list of SIs for the
year 2006 (for the vacancies in the year 2007). He was already
included in the select list of Sis fit for promotion as CIs for the
vacancies in the year 2010 and his claim for restoration of the
seniority in the select list of Sis(ie; for the vacancies in the year 2008)
cannot be considered due to the facts mentioned above."
17. After hearing both sides, we asked a pertinent question
to the petitioners as to whether they have urged those aspects
borne out from the present O.P. and para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply
statement before the Tribunal. We said so because, a reading of
Ext.P-3 final verdict of the Tribunal would disclose that all the
arguments of both sides have been considered on a comprehensive
basis. We are now given to understand that the abovesaid
contention based on Ground 'F' of this O.P. has not been urged
before the Tribunal. If such a contention has not been urged before
the Tribunal, we are not in a position to consider those aspects
while sitting in supervisory jurisdiction.
18. That apart, Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel
appearing for the sole respondent herein/sole applicant in the O.A.
before the Tribunal would submit that the said aspects in Ground
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..18..
'F' have never been urged, but also that the said aspects will not
make any material difference to the claim of the petitioners for
promotion for the select list in question. We need not get into those
aspects for the simple reason that contentions which are now been
urged before the Tribunal need not detain our consideration, etc.
19. Lastly, it is urged by Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned
Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners
herein/respondents in the O.A. that the Tribunal should not have
ordered as per Ext.P-3 that the applicant should also be given all
consequential monetary benefits and that the period of select list is
2006 and a long period has elapsed and it is indisputable that the
applicant has never discharged functions and duties of the post in
question which is a higher post, and further that there is also no
dispute that the duties and functions of the feeder category post of
Sub Inspector of Police and the present promotion post of
Inspector of Police are vastly different and distinct.
20. Further, we are also told that the applicant was already
promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2010. If that
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..19..
be so, the period of arrears of pay and allowances would be only for
about 4 years or so. After hearing, we suggested to both sides as to
whether the applicant could be promoted for the select list year
2006 as ordered by the Tribunal, but subject to the condition that
the other issues based on Ground 'F' of the O.P. as well as the issue
relating to consequential monetary benefits may be agitated by the
State in a review petition that may be filed before the Tribunal.
21. Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the
sole respondent herein/original applicant would fairly submit on
the basis of instructions of his party that the applicant has suffered
much, and he wants to put a full quietus to this litigation, and that
he would even concede that if the applicant is regularly promoted
for the select list year 2006 as ordered by the Tribunal, then the
issues relating to Ground 'F' of the O.P., and the consequential
monetary benefits may be agitated by the State in a separate review
petition, and if the abovesaid condition of promotion for the select
year 2006 is complied with by the State, then the original applicant
will not oppose the review petition on the basis of delay, and would
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..20..
contest the arguments of review on all other available grounds.
22. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that
he has no instructions on those aspects.
23. However, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal
cannot be in any manner be seriously faulted with for having
directed the State and the DPC authorities to promote the original
applicant as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2006. If, as a
matter of fact, the applicant has already been promoted to the
cadre of Inspector of Police for the year 2010, then the issue of
arrears of pay and allowances is only for a relatively less period of
4 years or so. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the
petitioners will immediately comply with the main directions of the
Tribunal to promote the original applicant as Inspector of Police
for the select list year 2006, within 6 weeks.
24. In case, the petitioners comply with the said direction,
then they will be at liberty to file a review petition before the
Tribunal along with a formal application to condone delay, urging
the aspects borne out from Ground 'F' of the O.P., and para 17 of
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..21..
Ext.P-2 reply statement and other related aspects, as well as the
issues relating to grant of consequential monetary benefits, etc.
25. We make it clear that if, the petitioners does not even
show fairness to that extent, then there is no question of giving
any liberty to them to prosecute those other issues of review
proceedings. In such a scenario, the petitioners herein will have to
comply with all the directions of the Tribunal as per Ext.P-3.
The directions and orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 will stand
modified to the limited extent as above.
With these observations and directions, the above Original
Petition (KAT) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
MMG
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..22..
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.310/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA
(EKM) NO.1480/2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.10.2009 IN WPC NO.27057/2009 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2010
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2011
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.05.2010 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.25/2009 OF
THE SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.05.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN TA NO.6313/2012
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 16.02.2016.
ANNEXURE A7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2012
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTED 13.07.2016 IN
TA NO.6313/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
OP(KAT) No. 310 of 2021
..23..
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020
IN OA NO.1480/2017 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
